Titanic Review
by Edward Champion (edchamp AT slip DOT net)December 22nd, 1997
MOVIE REVIEW: TITANIC
Review By Edward Champion
RATING: *** (out of four stars)
Judging by the initial reviews, TITANIC seems to have been praised by nearly every film critic from here to Wichita. But the question is, given the handful of truly great films released this year, whether we as moviegoers should accept anything less. We hand over our eight dollars, hoping that the talent behind a film will take us down a road to better understand ourselves or, at least, offer us a film we can sink our teeth into again and again with repeated viewings.
WATERWORLD and HEAVEN'S GATE proved that a mammoth budget does not make a good film. Filmmakers such as Neil Jordan and John Carpenter have showed us that, when presented with financial limitations, they come up with their strongest material. Forced to cut corners, artists are forced to find a cheap and creative way around a problem. Case in point: The brilliant, low-key photography in CITIZEN KANE that cinephiles and film students continue to admire today was used to hide the lack of sets.
James Cameron has proved to be a more-than-capable filmmaker, particularly during his pre-T2 films in which he worked with budgets less than $60 million. But with unlimited resources and Digital Domain at his disposal, his obsession with getting dazzling yet extraneous money shots reaches its peak in TITANIC.
You can say one thing about TITANIC: the money is definitely up there on the screen. The Titanic has been meticulously re-created for the film and, as you gaze up to the screen, it looks like you are there.
However, "looks" is the key word here. For TITANIC is a movie without a soul.
Actually, the soul lies more in the ship than the characters.
Don't get me wrong. I enjoyed TITANIC. Despite its nearly three and a half hour length, the film is never boring. Cameron has given us some scenery to chew upon. In addition, there's the added novelty of Cameron shooting a period piece with 1990's technology. Crane shots, dazzling CG effects, hundreds of extras -- many of them computer generated . You won't find the blasé of a Merchant Ivory film here.
But TITANIC is hardly LAWRENCE OF ARABIA.
TITANIC tells the story of a artist vagabond by the name of Jack Dawson (played by teenage idol Leonardo DiCaprio) who wins third-class Titanic tickets in a poker game (at a bar conveniently located five minutes away from the dock). He gets on board and meets Rose (Kate Winslet), a 17 year-old American set to marry the bland Cal Hockley (Billy Zane) to keep her mother (Frances Fisher) from going broke. The two of them fall in love.
The elements are all here. The dialogue may reflect more of 1997's speech patterns (not helped by casting DiCaprio) than 1912's, but Cameron gives us a story that we've seen six billion times and manages to keep it fresh using the juxtaposition of the Titanic, adding a dash of our blind faith in technology and a little bit of insight into class.
The plot moves forward at just the right moments. It's clear that Cameron has carefully mapped out the sequence of events.
At one point, Jack Dawson is invited to a dinner in the first class dining room and Cameron hints at the sociological differences between the rich and the poor. Class perhaps isn't so divided in 1912; still, there's clearly something developing, an effort by the patrician to distance himself from his plebian counterpart. And despite all of the mores at the time, the condescending remarks toward Jack aren't as subtle as they are today.
He also touches on our arrogance in relation to technology. The passengers on board Titanic are so convinced that the ship is unsinkable that, even as the ship sinks, many of them are still idly passing the time away.
But there's something lacking. Cameron the writer wants the script to be shot melodramatically, yet Cameron the director realizes it with a toned-down subtlety that seems out of place -- almost inappropriate.
In addition, there's a certain restraint evident in the acting. DiCaprio is competent, but Winslet's expressive face isn't used to full effect by Cameron to establish Rose's loneliness. And Zane, while a decent actor, is sadly miscast (and fairly one-dimensional) as Rose's fiancee.
Kathy Bates, however, gives a wonderful, understated performance as Molly Brown, the legendary passenger who urged the half-filled lifeboats to turn around and pick up the surviving passengers. Cameron uses the character wonderfully as a way for the audience to connect with the differences of the time period. In 1912, she may be brash and outspoken; but, in 1997, she'd be someone you could identify with.
Still, for all of the research Cameron has done on this film, for all of the flawless production design, we aren't given enough insight into the etiquette, manners or customs of the time, save through a corny scene in which Jack teaches Rose how to spit.
The film's last hour, in which the Titanic sinks, will no doubt satisfy those who came into the film for the effects. Cameron's flair for action sequences and suspense works rather well here, but it seems as if Cameron is determined to blow his budget rather than resolve some of the issues raised in the first two acts.
The film spends a good deal of time developing the romance between Jack and Rose, but Cameron is more obsessed with his usual survivalism motif, which detracts from the overall character development.
The denouement of the film, as well as the bookends of a 101 year-old Rose (Gloria Stuart) chronicling the story, seem a little contrived. Cameron seems determined to hit us over the head with a didactic message that's strays away from the senseless deaths of so many people.
Cameron seems to be drawn to epics and, when he puts story first, he is a good filmmaker. THE ABYSS proved that he could use visual effects to enhance an emotional, labyrinthine tale.
But, with TITANIC, Cameron is obsessed more with the visual than the visceral. It's a shame, because for all of the script's flaws, there's a certain spirit laced within the characters. But Cameron stops short of giving you the depth you need to get emotionally involved.
Overall though, TITANIC proves to be satisfying. Still, you can't help but wonder what Cameron would have created had he limited himself.
Maybe then he would have truly given us an epic.
(c) Copyright 1997 Edward Champion
Originally posted in the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup. Copyright belongs to original author unless otherwise stated. We take no responsibilities nor do we endorse the contents of this review.
